Talk:Cut rule

Add speed up

An important thing we could add is something about the work done on finding the sizes of cut free proofs. There are some theorems about how much longer a cut free proof must/can be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SWoolf123 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Cut-elimination theorem with Cut rule

No consensus to merge. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The topic is already covered in the latter article. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, the cut-elimination theorem is more significant than the cut rule itself (Example: the page for "cut rule" has 3 language links, "cut-elimination theorem" has 10) ALittleClass (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the merge being performed in the other direction. (I only added a "{{Merge}}" template, not "{{Merge from}}"/"{{Merge to}}".) 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 00:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

ALittleClass, any thoughts on this alternative proposal? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely the better of the two options, but I still think that this passes notability and that the proper course is that the article should be expanded for more information (see nlab [1] for one example). Procedurally though, I admit that the article hasn't demonstrated notability in it's current form. ALittleClass (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.